3 ms·

The paper they are basing the opening sentence "phone addiction is one of the biggest non-drug addiction(sic) in human history" on is written by a Doctor of Bus

The paper they are basing the opening sentence "phone addiction is one of the biggest non-drug addiction(sic) in human history" on is written by a Doctor of Business Administration, a dean that has "particular industries of interest are banks and non-profit organizations" in his bio and a third researcher with 2 publications total, including the article in question (published 2011). This may in no way weaken the point that some of the brightest minds of today are working on producing digital Skinner boxes, black on top, with humans as the rats, interfaced via phones. But basing an attempt at a strong argument about the addictive nature of cell-phones on an article with low relevance in scientific fields specializing in addiction could be described as suspect (most citations on g.scholar on the piece could be delineated as in the fields of business and management ).

testfoobar 6y ago
That is a fair criticism of this article. Anecdotally, I recently discussed phone addiction with a youngish tenured professor friend in the psych department at a major university. Two things stood out for me: 1. My academic friend really had a limited understanding of the success of machine learning in driving engagement online. How algorithms can and will enhance whatever mechanism they discover to drive engagement numbers. And how our brains are not wired to compete against them. 2. He took exception to the word addiction in the context of phones. He felt a phone could not drive addiction in the same way as a substance. My opinion is that our academic research is significantly behind due to the sheer speed and exponential growth of phone/app usage.
- sizzle 6y ago
  Maybe your friend is just ignorant if they are purely psych and not well versed in cognitive-neuroscience, which may be the best field for investigating and understanding modern day tech addictions via fMRI brain scans, etc. I wouldn't expect the field of Psychology to lead research in the area, as you also concluded in your closing statement.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

testfoobar 6y ago

That is a fair criticism of this article. Anecdotally, I recently discussed phone addiction with a youngish tenured professor friend in the psych department at a major university. Two things stood out for me: 1. My academic friend really had a limited understanding of the success of machine learning in driving engagement online. How algorithms can and will enhance whatever mechanism they discover to drive engagement numbers. And how our brains are not wired to compete against them. 2. He took exception to the word addiction in the context of phones. He felt a phone could not drive addiction in the same way as a substance. My opinion is that our academic research is significantly behind due to the sheer speed and exponential growth of phone/app usage.

sizzle 6y ago
Maybe your friend is just ignorant if they are purely psych and not well versed in cognitive-neuroscience, which may be the best field for investigating and understanding modern day tech addictions via fMRI brain scans, etc. I wouldn't expect the field of Psychology to lead research in the area, as you also concluded in your closing statement.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]